Comparison of four tests to assess inhibition of platelet function by clopidogrel in stable coronary artery disease patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: We investigated the comparability of platelet function tests in quantifying platelet inhibition achieved by clopidogrel. METHODS AND RESULTS: This pre-specified substudy of a randomized, double-blind trial included 116 patients with stable coronary artery disease requiring diagnostic angiography. Patients received clopidogrel for 1 (300 or 600 mg) or 7 days (300 + 75 or 150 mg daily) before the procedure. Blood samples obtained before clopidogrel initiation and before diagnostic coronary angiography were assayed using light transmission aggregometry [adenosine diphosphate (ADP) 5 and 20 microM as the agonist], whole-blood aggregometry (ADP 5 and 20 microM), PFA-100 (Collagen-ADP cartridge), and VerifyNow P2Y12. Although all assays studied were found sensitive to clopidogrel ingestion, none could distinguish categorically between patients who had, or not, ingested clopidogrel. Agreement between assays to identify patients with insufficient inhibition of platelet aggregation by clopidogrel was low. CONCLUSION: The assessment of platelet function inhibition by clopidogrel is highly test-specific. Decision to increase clopidogrel dosage may vary on the basis of the assay used, thus highlighting the need for unambiguous guidelines with respect to assay selection, as platelet function assays are not interchangeable. At present, platelet function testing evaluating clopidogrel efficacy cannot be recommended in routine clinical practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".